Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.2009 of 2025

Nilesh Dilip Jagtap ...Petitioner

V/s.

Divisional Joint Registrar, Co-

operative Societies, Pune Division,

Pune and Ors. ...Respondents

WITH

INTERIM APPLICATION NO.11400 OF 2025

IN

REVIEW PETITION (stamp) NO.29430 OF 2025

IN

WRIT PETITION NO.14371 OF 2022

Sandesh Baccharam Bhapkar and Ors. ...Petitioners

V/s.

State of Maharashtra and Ors. ...Respondents

________________

Dr. Milind Sathe, Advocate General with Ms. P.G. Gavhane, AGP for

Respondent -State.

Mr. Sagar Kursija i/b. Mr. Ronak Utagikar for the Petitioner in

WP/2009/2025.

Mr. Shailendra Kanetkar with Mr. Pranay Kothari for Respondent Nos.4

to 16 in WP/2009/2025 and for Petitioner in RPWST/29430/2025.

Ms. Shraddha Pawar with Mr. Rushikesh Salunkhe i/b. Mr. Dilip Bodake

for Respondent No.2 in WP/2009/2025 and for Respondent No.4 in

RPW(ST)/29430/2025.

________________

CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

Judgment reserved on: 8 JULY 2026.

Judgment pronounced on: 15 JULY 2026.

Page No. 1 of 27

15 July 2026 2026:BHC-AS:28923

Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt

JUDGMENT:

1)The common issue that arises for consideration in the Review

Petition and the Writ Petition is the authority before whom the Revision

Application would lie when the order sought to be revised is passed by

the District Deputy Registrar in exercise of delegated power of a

Registrar. Whether such revision would lie before the Divisional Joint

Registrar or before the State Government? Since the Review Petition and

the Writ Petition arise out of the same proceedings and involve same

question for determination, they are taken up for analogous hearing and

decision.

2)Briefly stated, facts of the case are that of elections to the

managing committee of Swayambhu Vividha Karyakari Seva Sahakari

Sanstha Maryadit (Society) were held and result were declared on 15

April 2022. Petitioners in Writ Petition No.14371 of 2022 were declared

elected and the committee was constituted. Mr. Nilesh Jagptap

(Petitioner in WP No. 2009 of 2025), who was one of the defeated

candidates, filed a complaint with the District Co-operative Election

Officer seeking disqualification of the elected members on the ground

that they had failed to lodge accounts of election expenditure. By Order

dated 15 November 2022, the District Deputy Registrar-cum-District Co-

operative Election Officer disqualified the elected members under Rule

66 of the Maharashtra State Co-operative Societies (Election to

Committee) Rules, 2014 (MCS Election Rules). Writ Petition No. 14371 of

2022 was filed challenging the Order dated 15 November 2022 by the

elected members. The Petition was opposed by Mr. Nilesh Jagtap inter

Page No. 2 of 27

15 July 2026

Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt

alia on the ground of availability of alternate remedy of filing revision

under Section 154 of the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960

(MCS Act).

3) By the judgment and order dated 27 September 2023 passed in

Writ Petition No.14371 of 2022, this Court held that an alternate remedy

under Section 154 of the MCS Act was available before the State

Government against order dated 15 November 2022 passed by the

District Deputy Registrar disqualifying the Petitioners therein. However,

instead of relegating the Petitioners to the alternate remedy, this Court

set aside order dated 15 November 2022 and remanded the proceedings

to District Deputy Registrar-cum-District Co-operative Election Officer

for being decided afresh. In the remanded proceedings, the District

Deputy Registrar-cum-District Co-operative Election Officer has passed

order dated 16 July 2024 once again disqualifying the Petitioners of Writ

Petition No.14371 of 2022 under Rule 66 of the MCS Election Rules. In

accordance with the observations made by this Court in the order 27

September 2023, the disqualified members have exercised the remedy of

revision against order dated 16 July 2024. However, contrary to the

observations made by this Court that revision would lie before the State

Government, the revision has been filed before the Divisional Joint

Registrar. The Complainant-Mr. Nilesh Jagtap raised his objections to the

maintainability of revision before the Divisional Joint Registrar. By order

dated 22 January 2025, the Divisional Joint Registrar has rejected the

Application filed by Mr. Nilesh Jagtap and has held the revision to be

maintainable. Aggrieved by order dated 22 January 2025, Mr. Jagtap has

filed Writ Petition No.2009 of 2025.

Page No. 3 of 27

15 July 2026

Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt

4)During the course of hearing of Writ Petition No.2009 of 2025, it

was sought to be urged on behalf of the disqualified members that the

revision against order passed by the Deputy Registrar can only lie before

the Divisional Joint Registrar. However, the observations made by this

Court in order dated 27 September 2023 about maintainability of

revision before the State Government were coming in the way of

disqualified members in prosecuting their revision before the Divisional

Joint Registrar. Accordingly, the disqualified members/Petitioners of Writ

Petition No.14371 of 2022 have sought review of order dated 27

September 2023 to the limited extent of this Court observing that the

remedy of revision against the order of District Deputy Registrar-cum-

District Cooperative Election Officer would lie before the State

Government. Accordingly, Review Petition (stamp) No.29430 of 2025 is

filed. There is delay of 667 days in filing the Review Petition for

condonation of which Interim Application No.11400 of 2025 is filed.

5)The disqualified members (Review Petitioners) have thus taken a

stand that the Revision against the order passed by the District Deputy

Registrar would lie before the Divisional Joint Registrar whereas the

Petitioner in the Writ Petition has contended that such Revision would

lie only before the State Government since the District Deputy Registrar

has passed the Order in exercise of delegated power of Registrar. It was

sought to be suggested by the learned counsel appearing for Writ

Petitioners that against every order passed by the Assistant, Deputy or

District Deputy Registrar while exercising delegated powers of Registrar,

the Revision would lie only before the State Government. It was noticed

that under the various Notifications issued by the State Government

appointing various officers to assist the Registrar and specifying the

Page No. 4 of 27

15 July 2026

Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt

local limits of their operations, they have been conferred substantial

powers exercisable by the Registrar. The argument presented on behalf

of the Writ Petitioner would virtually mean that no revision would lie

before the Divisional Joint Registrar and flooding the State Government

with all the Revisions arising throughout the State, thereby resulting in

an incongruous situation.

6)In the light of the intricate issue involved in the present

proceedings having wider ramifications, this Court requested the learned

Advocate General by order dated 1 July 2026 to address the Court and

render his assistance for effective resolution of the issue involved in the

proceedings.

7)Dr. Sathe, the learned Advocate General, appearing for the

Respondent-State submits that the Deputy Registrar or District Deputy

Registrar is subordinate to the Registrar of the Co-operative Societies

under the provisions of Section 3 of the MCS Act. He submits that even

though powers of Registrar are conferred on the Deputy Registrar, he

continues to remain subordinate to the Registrar, who can exercise

superintendence and control over the Deputy Registrar. That therefore

order passed by the Deputy Registrar does not become an order of the

Registrar. That the statutory scheme of the MCS Act is such that it is

permissible to confer powers of Registrar on subordinate officers while

Registrar continues to exercise power of superintendence and control

over such subordinate officer. He submits that under the hierarchical

structure, the posts of Registrar, Special Registrar, Additional Registrar

and Divisional Joint Registrar fall into the category of the ‘Registrar’

whereas posts of Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar and District

Page No. 5 of 27

15 July 2026

Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt

Deputy Registrar are posts subordinate to the posts of Registrar. That

therefore orders passed by the Assistant Registrar, Deputy Registrar and

District Deputy Registrar are amenable to revisional jurisdiction of the

Divisional Joint Registrar. He relies on judgment of this Court in

Krishnarao Bakaramji Hadge V/s. State of Maharashtra

1

in support of

his contention that when Assistant Registrar passes order exercising

powers of Registrar without seeking approval of Registrar, revision would

lie before the Registrar. Dr. Sathe submits that similar issue is also

decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Chintapalli Agency Taluk Arrack

Sales Cooperative Society Ltd. and Others V/s. Secretary (Food and

Agriculture) Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others

2

, in which it is

held that though Deputy Registrar exercises powers as Registrar, he

always remain under the general superintendence of Registrar and that

therefore Registrar can exercise power of revision over order passed by

the Deputy Registrar. He also relies on judgment of this Court in Malad

Cooperative Housing Society Limited and Another V/s. State of

Maharashtra and Others

3

in support of his contention that delegation of

power under the MCS Act under Section 158 does not make a subordinate

officer equivalent to the Registrar.

8)Dr. Sathe places on record Notification dated 24 November 2021,

which is applicable in the present case and submits that Notification

dated 11 September 2012 referred to in paragraph 18 of the judgment

under review was already superseded by Notification dated 24 November

2021. He submits that under the Notification dated 24 November 2021,

the State Government has appointed Deputy Registrar and Assistant

1(1966) 69 Bom LR 150

2(1977) 4 SCC 337

32026 SCC OnLine Bom 2631

Page No. 6 of 27

15 July 2026

Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt

Registrar in Taluka /Wards to assist the Registrar and has conferred on

them powers of Registrar as enumerated in Column 3 of the Schedule in

the area specified in Column 4 thereof. That in the present case, Deputy

Registrar-cum-District Co-operative Election Officer has exercised power

conferred under Notification dated 24 November 2021 while passing

order dated 15 November 2022.

9)Dr. Sathe accordingly concludes by submitting that though the

District Deputy Registrar has exercised power under Rule 66 of the

Election Rules, he still remains under control and supervision of the

Registrar and that therefore, revision against the decision of the District

Deputy Registrar would lie before the Divisional Joint Registrar and not

before the State Government.

10)Mr. Kanetkar, the learned counsel appearing for the Review

Petitioners, who are also the contesting Respondents in Writ Petition

No.2009 of 2025, submits that the Judgment and Order dated 27

September 2023 needs to be reviewed to the limited extent of clarifying

that the revision would lie before the Divisional Joint Registrar and not

before the State Government. He also prays for condonation of delay in

filing the Review Petition submitting that the delay is caused essentially

due to occurrence of subsequent events resulting in confusion about the

exact authority before whom the revision would lie.

11)Mr. Kanetkar further submits that the Revision under Section 154

of the MCS Act against order passed by the Deputy Registrar would lie

before the Divisional Joint Registrar. He submits that this Court has

essentially decided the issue of availability of alternate remedy against

Page No. 7 of 27

15 July 2026

Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt

order passed by the Deputy Registrar-cum District co-operative Election

officer under Section 154 of the MCS Act and that the exact authority

before whom such alternate remedy would lie was not the issue for

consideration before this Court. That none of the parties had canvassed

submissions about exact authority before whom the revision would lie.

He invites attention of this Court to the Notification dated 11 September

2012 referred to in paragraph 18 of the judgment under review and

submits that since the Deputy Registrar has exercised power of

disqualification under Rule 66 of the Election Rules, the Revision would

not lie to the State Government as Section 154(2) provides for revision to

the State Government only if the order is passed by Registrar /Additional

Registrar or Joint Registrar. He submits that the observations made by

this Court in paragraphs 29 to 30 of the judgment about alternate

remedy of revision before the State Government suffers from an obvious

error, which is apparent on face of record. He therefore prays for review

of the judgment dated 27 September 2023 and seeks clarification that the

revision would lie before the Divisional Joint Registrar. He submits that

once the observations in the judgment are reviewed, order passed by the

Divisional Joint Registrar on 22 January 2025 rejecting maintainability

application of the Complainant would automatically be validated,

warranting dismissal of Writ Petition No.2009 of 2025.

12)Mr. Kursija, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner in

Writ Petition No.2009 of 2025, who is also Respondent No.6 in Review

Petition, submits that this Court has correctly held that the revision

against order of disqualification passed by the Deputy Registrar -cum-

District Co-operative Election Officer would lie before the State

Government. He submits that the District Deputy Registrar has exercised

Page No. 8 of 27

15 July 2026

Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt

powers of Registrar under Rule 66 of the Election Rules. He relies on

Notification dated 11 September 2012 in support of his contention that

Column 4 of the Schedule appended thereto confers ‘all powers of the

Registrar under the Act and the Rules’ on District Deputy Registrar,

whose post has been created by the said Notification. That thus, the

District Deputy Registrar exercises delegated powers of Registrar under

Rule 66 of the MCS Election Rules. He relies on provisions of Section 158

of the MCS Act in support of his contention that there is delegation of

powers of Registrar to the District Deputy Registrar. He relies on

judgment of Single Judge of this Court in Krishnarao Bakaramji Hadge

(supra) in support of his contention that Divisional Joint Registrar

cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction to examine the legality of order

passed by the District Deputy Registrar or by any officer subordinate to

the Divisional Joint Registrar as a delegatee of the Registrar. He also

relies on judgment of the Apex Court in Behari Kunj Sahkari Awas Samiti

& Anr vs State of U.P. & Ors.

4

in support of his contention that when an

authority passes an order with the approval of the higher authority the

revision against such order is not maintainable before the approving

authority. He submits that since the Deputy Registrar has exercised

powers of Registrar, Divisional Joint Registrar entertaining revision

would virtually tantamount to exercise of powers of review. Mr. Kursija

accordingly prays for dismissal of the Review Petition and for setting

aside order dated 22 January 2025 and seeks dismissal of the Revision

pending before the Divisional Joint Registrar.

13)Rival contentions on the issue of the authority before whom the

remedy of revision would lie, now fall for my consideration.

4 1997 (7) SCC 37

Page No. 9 of 27

15 July 2026

Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt

14)There is delay of 667 days in filing the Review Petition. As

observed above, the issue involved in the Review Petition and in Writ

Petition No.2009 of 2025 is the same viz., the exact authority before

whom revision against order passed by District Deputy Registrar-cum-

District Co-operative Election Officer would lie. The issue is, can this be

decided in either of the proceedings. Even if the delay is not condoned

and the Review is dismissed on that count, the issue will still have to be

decided in the Writ Petition on merits. Hence in order to decide the issue,

it would be just and proper to condone the delay in filing the Review

Petition so that the same can be decided on merits. Delay has essentially

occurred on account of the fact that disqualified members first defended

the proceedings before the District Deputy Registrar in the proceedings

remanded by this Court. They were thereafter required to file Revision

against the order of the District Deputy Registrar, which they were

advised to file before the Divisional Joint Registrar. They defended

objection of maintainability raised by the Complainant. After the

objection of maintainability was repelled, Writ Petition No.2009 of 2025

is filed by the Complainant and during the course of hearing of that

Petition, it transpired that observations made in the order under review

suggest as if the revision would lie only before the State Government. In

that view of the matter, I deem it appropriate to condone the delay in

filing the Review Petition.

15)The elected members of the Society are aggrieved by their

disqualification as members of the Managing Committee for a period of

three years under the provision of Rule 66 of the MCS Election Rules.

Their disqualification was initially ordered by the District Co-operative

Page No. 10 of 27

15 July 2026

Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt

Election Officer-cum-District Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies,

Pune (Rural), Pune by order dated 15 November 2022. They assailed

order dated 15 November 2022 by filing Writ Petition No.14371 of 2022.

Entertainability of Writ Petition was questioned by the Complainant-Mr.

Nilesh Jagtap on the ground of availability of alternate remedy of

revision under Section 154 of the MCS Act. This Court analysed the

provisions of Rules 65, 66 and 67 of the Election Rules as well as the

definition of the term ‘the District Co-operative Election Officer’ in Rule

2(8). After examining the powers of the State Co-operative Election

Authority under Rule 3, this Court arrived at a conclusion that initiation

of proceedings under Rule 66 of the MCS Election Rules is by the District

Co-operative Election Officer, who first needs to record a satisfaction

that there is failure in lodging account of election expenses within the

prescribed time and as per particulars specified in Rule 67 of the Election

Rules. However, in the judgment dated 27 September 2023, it appears

that provisions of unamended Rule 66 are quoted. After amendment

w.e.f. 6 August 2018, Rule 66 of the MCS Election Rules read thus:

66. Disqualification for failure of lodge account of election expenses.

(1) If the District Co-operative Election Officer is satisfied that a

person,-

(a)has failed to lodge an account of election expenses

within the time and in the manner required by the last

preceding section, and

(b)has no good reason or justification for the failure,

the District Co-operative Election Officer or Taluka or Ward

Co-operative Election Officer, as the cae may be, shall

submit report to the Registrar and after receipt of such

report, the concerned Registrar after providing an

opportunity of being heard shall, by order, declare him to

be disqualified for being elected as, and for being, a

member of the committee of any society, and any such

person shall be disqualified for a period of three years from

the date of the order.

Page No. 11 of 27

15 July 2026

Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt

16)The change brought about by 2018 amendment is to empower even

Taluka or Ward Co-operative Election Officer to submit report to the

Registrar under clause (b) of Rule 66(1) of the MCS Election Rules. Be

that as it may. This Court proceeded to hold in paragraph 16 of the

judgment under review that theoretically the Deputy Registrar

proceeded to hold in paragraphs 16 and 20 of the judgment under review

as under:

16. However under Rule 66, though the District Cooperative Election

Officer is empowered to record a satisfaction that there is failure by a

candidate to lodge the account of election expenses within time and

as per particulars specified in Rule 67, the ultimate jurisdiction of

taking the decision of disqualification is vested in the Registrar. Thus

there is transfer of proceedings from SCEA machinery to the

Registrar appointed under the Act of 1960 within Rule 66. The

jurisdiction of District Cooperative Election Officer is restricted to

recording of satisfaction about failure to lodge and examining the

reasons / justification for delay in lodging the account of election

expenses. He has to thereafter make a report to the Registrar, who

alone is empowered to make a declaration of disqualification.

xxx

20. As observed above, under Rule 66 of the Election Rules, the

Registrar is empowered to take a decision of disqualification of

member of a Committee. Thus, the Deputy Registrar has exercised

powers as Registrar under Rule 66 while passing the order dated

15/11/2022. It is thus Registrar’s decision and not of District

Cooperative Election Officer.

17)This Court accordingly held that the Deputy Registrar exercises

powers of Registrar under Rule 66 of the MCS Election Rules while

passing an order of disqualification. This is how this Court held that a

revision would be maintainable against the decision of the Deputy

Registrar disqualifying an elected member under Rule 66 of the Election

Rules. This Court concluded in paragraph 23 of the judgment under

review as under:

Page No. 12 of 27

15 July 2026

Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt

23. A conclusion is already recorded that the decision of making

deliration of Petitioners’ disqualification is taken by the Deputy

Registrar in exercise of delegated powers of Registrar. I am therefore

of the view that a Revision under Section 154 would be maintainable

against decision taken by a Registrar (or by Deputy Registrar of

Cooperative Societies while exercising delegated powers of the

Registrar) under Rule 66 of the Election Rules. This answers the first

issue.

18)However, in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the judgment, this Court has

made observations that Revision under Section 154 of the MCS Act

would lie before the State Government. The observations in paragraphs

29 and 30 read thus:

29. In ordinary course, since this error on the part of Deputy

Registrar / Registrar is capable of being corrected in Revision filed

before the State Government, this Petition could be disposed of

relegating Petitioners to the alternate remedy of revision. ...

30. Therefore, though there is an alternate remedy available for the

Petitioners to file Revision under Section 154 of the Act of 1960 before

the State Government, considering the peculiar facts and

circumstances of the case where reasons or justifications given by the

Petitioners for failure to lodge accounts of election expenses within

60 days have not at all been examined by the Deputy Registrar-cum-

District Cooperative Election Officer, the proceedings are required to

be remanded rather than relegating Petitioners to alternate remedy of

Revision under Section 154 of the Act of 1960. ...

(emphasis added)

19)It must be observed that the issue for consideration before this

Court while deciding Writ Petition No.14371 of 2022 was limited only

with regard to the availability of remedy of revision against order passed

by the District Deputy Registrar under Rule 66 of the MCS Election Rules.

This Court was not called upon to answer the issue of exact authority

before whom such revision would lie. In fact, the occasion for deciding

the issue of the authority before whom the revision would lie never arose

before this Court as it remanded the proceedings to District Deputy

Page No. 13 of 27

15 July 2026

Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt

Registrar for being decided afresh. In that sense, observations in

paragraphs 29 and 30 about maintainability of the Revision before the

State Government cannot be read to mean as if this Court has decided

the issue about the authority before whom the revision would lie. I

proceed to consider whether a case is made out for recall of those

observations in the judgment under review while analogously deciding

the same issue directly raised in Writ Petition No. 2009 of 2025.

20)To decide the issue, it would be apposite to consider the provisions

of the MCS Act, under which the Registrar and various other officers are

appointed. Section 3 of the MCS Act provides for appointment of

Registrar and his subordinates and provides thus:

3. Registrar and his subordinates

The State Government may appoint a person to be the Registrar of

Co-operative Societies for the State; and may appoint one or more

persons to assist such Registrar, with such designations, and in such

local areas or throughout the State, as it may specify in that behalf,

and may, by general or special order, confer on any such person or

persons all or any of the powers of the Registrar under this Act. The

person or persons so appointed to assist the Registrar and on whom

any powers of the Registrar are conferred, shall work under the

general guidance, superintendence and control of the Registrar. They

shall be subordinate to the Registrar, and subordination of such

persons amongst themselves shall be such as may be determined by

the State Government.

(emphasis and underlining added)

21)Thus, Section 3 of the MCS Act is in three parts. The first part deals

with appointment, the second part deals with conferment of powers and

the third part deals with supervision /control/ guidance over the person

so appointed. In the first part, the State Government can appoint a

person to be the Registrar of Co-operative Societies for the State.

Page No. 14 of 27

15 July 2026

Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt

Additionally, the State Government can also appoint one or more

persons to assist such Registrar with different designations and for

different local areas throughout the State. In the second part, the State

Government can, by general or special order, confer on person appointed

to assist the Registrar all or any of the powers of the Registrar under the

MCS Act. However, the third part of Section 3 makes it clear that the

person appointed to assist the Registrar, on whom powers of Registrar

are conferred, continues to work under general guidance,

superintendence and control of the Registrar. The third part also makes

it clear that such person shall always be subordinate to the Registrar.

Thus, persons appointed to assist the Registrar not only work under his

supervision and control but are in fact subordinate to him. Mere

confernment of powers of Registrar on such persons does not elevate

their status to that of Registrar nor the decisions taken by them in

exercise of powers of Registrar become the decision of the Registrar. The

decisions taken by them would continue to be the decision taken by an

officer subordinate to the Registrar.

22)The State Government has issued various orders in exercise of

powers conferred under Section 3 of the MCS Act appointing persons to

assist the Registrar and conferring on them powers of Registrar by

specifying the area for exercise of such powers. Said orders are issued

from time to time beginning from 6 October 1981. One such

Notification /order dated 11 September 2012 is referred to in paragraph

18 of the judgment under review. Dr. Sathe has placed on record copy of

subsequent Order dated 24 November 2021, which supersedes all

previous Orders including the Order dated 11 September 2012. Under

Order dated 24 November 2021, the State Government has appointed a

Page No. 15 of 27

15 July 2026

Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt

Special Registrar of Co-operative Societies at Headquarters, who

exercises powers of Registrar excepting the ones indicated in Column 3

to the Schedule in the area of the whole State. The State Government has

also appointed an Additional Registrar of Co-operative Societies at the

Headquarters for the whole State. The State Government has appointed

Divisional Joint Registrars of Co-operative Societies for each Division in

the State and has conferred on them all powers of Registrar excepting the

one indicated in Column 3 of the Schedule. Similarly, the District Deputy

Registrars are appointed for each of the Districts and four District

Deputy Registrars are appointed for city of Mumbai and a District Deputy

Registrar is appointed for Pune and Pimpri Chinchwad Municipal

Corporation. For Talukas/ Wards, the Deputy Registrars and Assistant

Registrars are appointed to exercise all powers of Registrar excepting the

one indicated in Column 3 of the Schedule.

23)Dr. Sathe has clarified that the Assistant Registrar, Deputy

Registrar and District Deputy Registrars form a homogeneous class for

the purpose of their subordination to the Registrar, Special Registrar,

Additional Registrar and Divisional Joint Registrar, who form another

homogeneous class. Therefore, though Assistant Registrar, Deputy

Registrar or District Deputy Registrar may be conferred powers of

Registrar under Section 3 of the MCS Act, they continue to remain

subordinate to the Registrar, and also to the Divisional Joint Registrar,

since they work under general guidance, supervision and control of the

Registrar. As observed above, mere conferment of power of Registrar

does not elevate them to the status of Registrar and they continue to

remain subordinate to the Registrar.

Page No. 16 of 27

15 July 2026

Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt

24)Under Section 158 of the MCS Act, the State Government can

delegate powers of Registrar to any officer or authority. Section 158 of

the MCS Act provides thus:

158. Delegation of power of Registrar to certain authorities and

officers

The State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, and

subject to such conditions (if any) as it may think fit to impose,

delegate all or any of the powers of the Registrar under this Act to any

federal authority or to an officer thereof or to any other authority and

such officer or authorities shall work under the general guidance,

superintendence and control of the Registrar specified in the

notification.

(emphasis added)

25)Thus, even in Section 158 of the MCS Act, while recognizing the

power of delegation, the provision makes it explicitly clear that the

delegatee officer continues to function under the general guidance,

superintendence and control of the Registrar. Therefore, though the

powers of Registrar can be delegated to an officer or authority under

Section 158 of the Act, such officer or authority still works under the

general guidance, superintendence and control of the Registrar while

execrcising the delegated powers. As observed above, Section 3 of the

MCS Act makes such officer subordinate to the Registrar. Thus,

provisions of Sections 3 and 158 of the MCS Act, when read

harmoniously, lead to an inescapable conclusion that the decisions taken

and orders passed by the delegatee officers under the Act while

exercising the powers of the delegating officer, continue to be the

decisions/orders of the subordinate officer, capable of being revised by

the Registrar.

Page No. 17 of 27

15 July 2026

Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt

26) In Chintapalli Agency (supra) provisions of Andhra Pradesh

Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 fell for consideration before three Judge

Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Under Section 3 of the Andhra Pradesh

Cooperative Societies Act, there is pari materia provision for

appointment of Registrar of Co-operative Societies Act and every person

to work under general superintendence of Registrar. The issue before the

Apex Court was whether revision against order passed by the Deputy

Registrar was amenable before the Registrar since the Deputy Registrar

had exercised delegated powers of the Registrar. Reliance was placed on

judgment of the Apex Court in Roop Chand V/s. State of Punjab

5

in

which it was held that when an officer acts as a delegatee of the

Government, he exercises statutory power of appeal of the Government.

The Apex Court distinguished its judgment in Roop Chand and held that

statutory scheme in Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act was

entirely different where though Deputy Registrar exercises power of a

Registrar, but he always remains under general superintendence of the

Registrar. The Apex Court held that the scheme of State Government-

East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation and Prevention of Fragmentation)

Act, 1948 in Roop Chand’s case was different from Andhra Pradesh

Cooperative Societies Act. The Apex Court held in paragraphs 19 and 20

of the judgment as under:

19. Roop Chand's case (supra) is clearly distinguishable since there

under section 41(1) of the East Punjab Holdings (Consolidation

and Prevention of Fragmentation) Act, 1948, the State

Government appoints persons and delegates its powers or

functions under the Act to such officers. When, therefore, an

officer acts as a delegate of the State Government he exercises

statutory power of appeal of the Government under section 21 (4)

of the Act. This Court observed,in that case:

51963 Supp 1 SCR 539

Page No. 18 of 27

15 July 2026

Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt

".... such a power when delegated remains the power of

the Government, for the Government can only delegate

the power given to it by the statute and cannot create an

independent power in the officer. When the delegate

exercises the power, he does so for the Government".

20. In the present case it is true the power under section 16 is that

of the Registrar but the Deputy Registrar exercises that power as

empowered by the Government but always "under the general

superintendence of the Registrar". Again, under section 76(2) any

order passed in pursuance of the power so exercised under section

16 is appealable to the Registrar as an order passed by "any other

officer" appointed under section 3(1). The scheme of the

Consolidation Act which this Court had to deal with in Roop

Chand's case (supra) is different from that of the Co-operative Act.

The submission of counsel that the Registrar's order in revision is

a nullity is devoid of substance.

27)As early as in the year 1966, a Division Bench of this Court in

Krishnarao Bakaramji Hadge (supra) has interpreted the provisions of

Section 3 of the MCS Act in the context of revision remedy under Section

154 of the MCS Act. In that case, the Assistant Registrar had exercised

jurisdiction under Section 91 of the MCS Act in exercise of powers

conferred under Section 3 of the MCS Act. The issue before the Division

Bench was whether the Registrar could exercise power of revision against

order of Assistant Registrar. This Court held in paragraphs 8 and 9 of the

judgment as under:

8. Section 3 provides for delegation of powers of the Registrar to any

subordinate officer by the State Government, either by general or

special order. It further provides that a person or persons so

appointed to assist the Registrar and on whom any powers of the

Registrar are conferred, shall work under the general guidance,

superintendence and control of the Registrar. This section makes it

clear that even if the Assistant Registrar is empowered to exercise the

powers of the Registrar, even so the Assistant Registrar works under

the guidance, superintendence and control of the Registrar himself.

He is clearly, therefore, subordinate to the Registrar. It is not possible

to contend that merely because the Assistant Registrar exercises the

Page No. 19 of 27

15 July 2026

Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt

delegated powers of the Registrar, his order must be taken to be the

order of the Registrar. Under the Act, all the duties are cast on the

Registrar. There is no statutory duty cast on the Additional or Deputy

Registrar or Assistant Registrar as such. In all these cases, therefore,

where delegated powers are exercised, they are exercised by virtue 'of

s.3, and in many cases the powers exercised are powers of the

Registrar. Even so, all these officers are subordinate to the Registrar as

shown by s.152 which provides the forum of appeal against the orders

made by respective officers. Section 152(1) states that-

“ An appeal against an order or decision under Sections 4, 9, 11,

12, 13, 14, 17, 18, 19, 21, 29, 35, 78 and 105 shall lie,-

(a) if made or sanctioned or approved by the Registrar, or

the Additional or Joint Registrar on whom powers of the

Registrar are conferred, to the State Government,

(b) if made or sanctioned by any person other than the

Registrar, or the Additional or Joint Registrar on whom

the powers of the Registrar are conferred, to the Registrar.

9. In the present case, the order is made by the Assistant Registrar. If

it is made with the approval of the Registrar, then the revisional

jurisdiction must, on the principles of this section, lie to the State

Government, because, in that case, it becomes virtually the order of

the Registrar. If, however, the order is made by the Assistant Registrar

without reference to the Registrar, then the revision application will

lie to the Registrar. In every case, whether the revision lies to the

State Government or to the Registrar must, in view of s.152 depend

upon whether the order was made with the approval or sanction of

the Registrar. All are agreed before us that, in the present case, the

order was passed by the Assistant Registrar on his own without the

sanction or approval of the Registrar. In accordance with the

principles laid down by us, the revisional jurisdiction will, therefore,

be of the Registrar.

(Emphasis supplied)

28)Thus, as held in Krishnarao Bakaramji Hadge (supra), even if the

Assistant Registrar is empowered to exercise powers of the Registrar, he

still works under guidance, supervision and control of the Registrar and

remains subordinate to the Registrar. It is held that merely because

Assistant Registrar exercises the delegated powers of the Registrar, his

order cannot be taken as order of the Registrar. It is further held that

only if the order is made by the Assistant Registrar with the approval of

the Registrar, revisional jurisdiction would lie to the State Government

Page No. 20 of 27

15 July 2026

Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt

since the said order becomes virtually the order of the Registrar.

However, when Assistant Registrar makes an order without approval of

the Registrar, the revision application would lie before the Registrar. In

my view, judgment in Krishnarao Bakaramji Hadge (supra) provides

complete answer to the issue involved in the present proceedings. It

must however be added here that after delivery of the Division Bench

judgment in Krishnarao Bakaramji Hadge (supra) on 27 July 1966,

provision of Section 3 of the MCS Act are amended by inserting the

following portion:

They shall be subordinate to the Registrar, and subordination of such

persons amongst themselves shall be such as may be determined by

the State Government.

Thus, in tune with what is observed by the Division Bench in Krishnarao

Bakaramji Hadge , now there is statutory declaration of subordination of

assisting officers to the Registrar.

29)The judgment in Krishnarao Bakaramji Hadge (supra) is followed

by Single Judge of this Court in Malad Cooperative Housing Society

Limited and Another V/s. State of Maharashtra and Others

6

in which a

contention was canvassed that the District Deputy Registrar exercises

power as a delegatee of a Registrar under Section 158 of the MCS Act and

that therefore the Divisional Joint Registrar had no jurisdiction to

entertain a revision application against such order. The submission was

canvassed by relying on judgment of this Court in Bajarang Labour

Cooperative Society, Mahagaon (Z) vs. Divisional Joint Registrar of

Cooperative Societies, Nagpur and Others

7

. The submission was

62026 SCC OnLine Bom 2631

7 2016 (2) Mh.L.J. 849

Page No. 21 of 27

15 July 2026

Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt

countered by the opposing parties placing reliance on judgment of

Division Bench of this Court in Krishnarao Bakaramji Hadge (supra). This

Court held in paragraphs 44 and 54 as under:-

44. The only harmonious reading is that a subordinate officer exercises

powers delegated from the Registrar, such officer remains subordinate,

and his order continues to be his order as subordinate officer, though

passed in exercise of delegated power. Such order therefore is

amenable to revision under Section 154 depending upon the rank of

officer. Sections 3 and 158 clearly establish that delegation of powers

under the Act does not make the subordinate officer equivalent to the

Registrar. They permit exercise of specified powers while preserving

supervision and control. Section 154 indicates that the Act

contemplates revisional scrutiny over orders passed by subordinate

officers notwithstanding that such officers may have exercised powers

originally vesting in the Registrar. Hence, the revisional jurisdiction

exercised in the present matter cannot be faulted on that count.

xxx

54. Further support to the aforesaid interpretation is also available

from the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Cipla Limited

v. Competent Authority and the District Deputy Registrar, Co operative

Society and Others, reported in 2021 SCC OnLine Bom 622, wherein

while considering the scheme of the Maharashtra Cooperative societies

Act and the status of officers functioning thereunder, the Division

Bench has reiterated the distinction between the Registrar and

subordinate officers functioning below him. In paragraphs 131 to 133

of the said judgment, the Division Bench took note of the position of

Registrars and subordinate officers and observed that the office of the

Deputy District Registrar is not at par with the post of the Registrar.

The Division Bench thereafter referred to the earlier binding precedent

in Krishnarao Bakaramji Hadge and reiterated that even where powers

of the Registrar are conferred upon subordinate officers under Section

3 of the Act, such officers continue to function under the

superintendence of the Registrar and remain subordinate to him. The

Division Bench further observed that merely because an Assistant

Registrar, Deputy Registrar or similar subordinate officer exercises

delegated powers of the Registrar, it cannot be contended that the

order passed by such officer must be treated as the order of the

Registrar himself. In my considered opinion, the aforesaid observations

of the Division Bench directly go against the contention sought to be

raised by the petitioners in the present matter that once delegated

powers are exercised by the Deputy Registrar, the resulting order must

be equated with an order of the Registrar himself. The ratio of Cipla

Limited, read with Krishnarao Bakaramji Hadge, clearly affirms that

delegation of power does it obliterate the distinction between the

Page No. 22 of 27

15 July 2026

Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt

principal authority and the subordinate officer exercising delegated

powers. Thus, even on the basis of the binding Division Bench

precedent of this Court, the submission advanced by the petitioners on

the question of jurisdiction cannot be sustained.

30)Thus, in Malad Cooperative Housing Society Limited (supra) this

Court considered the ratio of the judgments of the Apex Court in

Chintapalli Agency (supra), Roop Chand (supra) and Cipla Limited v.

Competent Authority and the District Deputy Registrar, Co operative

Society and Others,

8

and of Division Bench judgment of this Court in

Krishnarao Bakaramji Hadge (supra) and held that the Divisional Joint

Registrar could entertain revision against the order passed by the Deputy

Registrar while exercising delegated powers of Registrar. More

importantly, this Court distinguished the ratio of the judgment of this

Court in Bajarang Labour Cooperative Society, and has held in paragraph

55 of the judgment as under:

55. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners has placed

considerable reliance upon the judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this

Court in Bajarang Labour Cooperative Society and submitted that the

said decision, after considering Sections 158 and 23(1A) of the

Maharashtra Co operative Societies Act, took the view that by virtue of

the Government Notification dated 11 September 2012, powers of the

Registrar stood delegated to the Deputy Registrar and therefore while

entertaining such applications the District Deputy Registrar acts as

delegate of the Registrar, and no revision could thereafter lie before the

Divisional Joint Registrar. It has further been pointed out that the said

view has thereafter been followed in Ravi Vishwanath Ghumre and also

in Deepali Majoor Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit. This Court is unable to

accept the same as in the first place, the proposition canvassed in

Bajarang Labour appears to proceed on a application of the doctrine

that an act of delegate is to be treated as act of delegator. However,

such proposition, with respect, cannot be read divorced from binding

precedents of superior Courts. As already discussed hereinabove, the

Supreme Court in Chintapalli Agency and Yogendra Prasad has held

that where the statute itself preserves supervision and distinction

between the Registrar and subordinate officers, the conferment of

delegated powers upon subordinate officers does not elevate such

82021 SCC OnLine Bom 622

Page No. 23 of 27

15 July 2026

Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt

officer to the status of Registrar. Equally, Division Bench judgments of

this Court in Krishnarao Bakaramji Hadge and Cipla Limited have

reiterated that subordinate officers exercising delegated powers remain

subordinate. These authorities explain the statutory scheme and make

it clear that delegation under Sections 3 or 158 does not obliterate

statutory position of Registrar. Further, Section 154 itself provides that

revision shall lie depending upon the rank of the officer who passed the

order, and not merely upon the source from which power is derived. In

that view of the matter, the reasoning in Bajarang Labour does not

align with Supreme Court and Division Bench precedents noticed

above. Mere subsequent following of Bajarang Labour by coordinate

Benches in Ravi Vishwanath Ghumre and Deepali Majoor Sahakari

Sanstha would not change the position where the issue stands covered

by judgments of Supreme Court. Accordingly, with utmost respect, the

reliance placed by the petitioners upon the aforesaid line of judgments

does not persuade this Court to accept the contention that the

Divisional Joint Registrar lacked jurisdiction to entertain the revision

merely because the original order was passed by the Deputy Registrar

exercising delegated powers.

31)Thus, the ratio of the judgments in Chintapalli Agency, Krishnarao

Bakaramji Hadge and Malad Cooperative Housing Society Limited

(supra), leaves no manner of doubt that even if a District Deputy

Registrar exercises powers of Registrar under the MCS Act, he still

remains subordinate to the Registrar and that therefore the order passed

by him does not become order of the Registrar. Therefore, revision

against order made by a District Deputy Registrar would lie before the

Divisional Joint Registrar.

32)The judgment of Single Judge of this Court in Bajarang Labour

Cooperative Society, (supra) need not be separately discussed since the

same is distinguished by this Court in Malad Cooperative Housing

Society Limited (supra). The judgment of the Apex Court in Behari Kunj

Sahkari Awas Samiti (supra) follows the ratio of the judgment in Roop

Chand (supra), which has already been distinguished by the Apex Court

in Chintapalli Agency (supra).

Page No. 24 of 27

15 July 2026

Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt

33)Conspectus of the above discussion is that the District Deputy

Registrar, while passing order of disqualification under Rule 66 of the

MCS Election Rules, though has exercised powers of Registrar, he still

remains subordinate to the Registrar. The order passed by the District

Deputy Registrar under Rule 66 of the MCS Election Rules does not

become order passed by the Registrar. In the present case, the District

Deputy Registrar has not sought approval of the Registrar while passing

order of disqualification. Therefore, revision application under Section

154 of the MCS Act against order passed by the District Deputy Registrar

or a Deputy Registrar would lie before the Divisional Joint Registrar.

34)In my view, therefore, the observations made by this Court in

paragraphs 29 and 30 of the judgment under review about availability of

remedy of revision before the State Government need to be reviewed and

recalled and it needs to be clarified that such revision would lie before

the Divisional Joint Registrar.

35)Once the observations of this Court in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the

judgment under review are clarified by holding that the Divisional Joint

Registrar can exercise revisional powers against order passed by the

District Deputy Registrar/Deputy Registrar under Rule 66 of the MCS

Election Rules, the order dated 22 January 2025 will have to be

necessarily upheld by dismissing Writ Petition No.2009 of 2025.

36)I accordingly, proceed to pass the following order:

(i)Delay in filing the Review Petition is condoned.

Page No. 25 of 27

15 July 2026

Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt

(ii)Observations made by this Court in paragraphs 29 and

30 of the judgment and order dated 27 September 2023

passed in Writ Petition No.14371 of 2022, to the extent

of availability of remedy of revision before the State

Government, are recalled.

(iii)It is clarified that Revision against an order passed by

the Deputy Registrar/District Deputy Registrar, while

exercising powers of Registrar conferred under Section

3 of the MCS Act without reference /approval of

Registrar shall lie before the Divisional Joint Registrar.

(iv)Accordingly, the Revision against the Order dated 16

July 2024 shall lie before the Divisional Joint Registrar.

(v)To above limited extent, Review Petition (Stamp)

No.29430 of 2025 is allowed.

(vi)Writ Petition No.2009 of 2025 is dismissed by

upholding the order dated 22 January 2025 passed by

the Divisional Joint Registrar.

(vii)The Divisional Joint Registrar is requested to

expedite the decision of revision and to make an

endeavour to decide the same as expeditiously as

possible, preferably within a period of four months.

36)With the above directions, both the proceedings and the Interim

Application are disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

Page No. 26 of 27

15 July 2026

Megha 904_wp_2009_2025 with rpwst_29430_25_fc.odt

37) After the judgment is pronounced, learned counsel appearing

for the Writ Petitioner prays for extension of ad-interim relief granted

during the pendency of the Petition. The request is opposed by the

learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioner. In view of the

observations made in the judgment, I am not inclined to continue the

interim order. The request is accordingly rejected.

[SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]

Page No. 27 of 27

15 July 2026